I think the main point is that a URI doesn't imply "location", it is
merely an abstraction of something that has identity (I think this is
consistent with [1]). The notion of "server" is not in any way integral
to this, as I said in my previous mail [2], a server (or servers) may
show up in particular resolution mechanism but that is orthogonal to the
identifier itself. There is no dependency on client/server or otherwise.
Hope this makes sense,
Henrik
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#uri-partitioning
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0101.html
>Hmm. I don't think we can have it both ways. If resources
>don't travel,
>then it's incoherent to say "this resource lives at server X".
> In other
>words, if something has a location, then it's necessarily
>reasonable to
>say that it has a location that moves, at least in a system like this.
>Keep in mind that with my earlier example, there was on
>picture of my on
>any server. The only state representing the picture at all was in the
>message. So, I think we can have it two ways:
>
>1) Resources don't travel because they are never localized.
>They are just
>abstractions with no notion of location or proximity. In this case,
>Henrik's proposal that resources don't travel makes sense.
>
>2) Resources do or often do have a location. In this case, I
>think it's
>as coherent to say the location is in a message as on a
>server. I hope
>we aren't tieing the notion of URI and resource to client/server?